Is this the Worst Supreme Court in History?

They can give a bazillion dollars to political groups that spend it on campaign advertising. I don't believe that corporations should be allowed to
donate any money to the political system, they already have so much influence over it.

So taxation without representation? Surely you would agree that if you were taxed and regulated that you would have the right to have a say in the
political arena, yes?

Would you say the same thing about labor unions, or would that "be different?"

So true, that was the leading Headline on Yahoo News the other day - Obama's Presidency but Bush's World. If that isn't a clear case of continuing
to try to milk the whole "Blame Bush" meme ... then I don't know what is.

As far as Citizens United, I believe that a mroe liberal court would have voted the same way and democrats would have been hailing it as a
victory. BOTH parties benefit from this. And Harry Reid can kiss it if he thinks Republican donors give more than Democrat donors.

The Hobby Lobby decision was a little ridiculous. I see it was a way of forcing women who already pay for health insurance to pay extra for
birth control.

HHS already has a plan up and operating where neither the women or the taxpayers would have to pay anything extra. The Court
suggested that HHS could include the Hobby Lobby women in that plan, or they could come up with another one.

Birth control is essential to health care.

Even if it was, (which I'm granting only to prevent thread drift), Hobby Lobby already
covers 16 of the 20 birth control methods and will continue to do so. I haven't seen any argue that IUDs, and the morning after pill are essential
to health care (unless "health care" has an amzingly wide definition).

I do admit, I am ignorant to the ways of the Supreme Court. Obviously to them, a corporation is more important than the individual.

The
Court never even hinted that, let alone made it obvious. As the Court noted, a corporation can't do anything at all. A corporation is a collection
of individuals. People write the checks, prepare the policies, talk with insurance agents, etc. In this case, every single person with
ownership in Hobby Lobby believed their religious freedom was being burdened.

Besides, what right was HHS comparing to religious freedom? The right to have your abortifacients paid for by your employer? I'm sorry, but I
can't help but chuckle.

Truly the US has become a government for the corporation, by the corporation set up to exploit the common citizen.

Please explain
exactly how Hobby Lobby workers are exploited by this decision?

It is not so much Hobby Lobby I am concerned about. It is the precedent it sets. Now other corporations and health plans have already followed step.

This ruling is much bigger than Hobby Lobby.

That question deserves no answer. I could care less about Hobby Lobby, they will continue to fail.

You are correct--this ruling is much, much more than hobby lobby, it is about the overreach of government and the unconstitutionality of the federal
government mandating healthcare (or anything else for that matter.)

I definitely agree but lets lay off the OP and give everyone the right to learn. I try to keep emotion out of these posts and look at it it from a
"matter of fact" type perspective. S&F to Charles for showing the proof is in the pudding.

Thank you for a good and thoughtful response, I appreciate it. Now we can talk.

I COMPLETELY AGREE that other corporations and health plans are trying to use this decision to change their coverages, but I wonder how far the
precedent goes.

The Court relied on the existence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to make their case. Democrats are calling for the amendment or
repeal of RFRA. If that happens, then any precedence will "Poof" into air.

RFRA also applies only to religious issues. If a corporation said, we don't want to follow the law on labeling are trucks moving in interstate
commerce, because we think such labeling is the Mark of the Beast, I'd have no doubt that the Court would merely laugh at them.

The Court wouldn't have even heard this case if it didn't see a substantial burden on religious freedom. (And a few other requirements.) Off the
top of my head, I only see a couple of areas where this might pop up again. Actually, now that I think about it further, I really don't know of
other areas where it might apply.

The baker and photographer, and the gays? I don't think it would pass the "substantial burden" test. Bringing in Muslims to teach in synagogues,
because you can't discriminate because of religion? That's already been dealt with.

If this decision is a "slippery slope," I'd be very cautious about it. I think, though, that I'm going to need your help in figuring out to where
the slope might lead.

you mean the two appointed by bush? and the one every one seems to dislike was appointed by Regan not either of the bushes (scalia)

en.wikipedia.org... two by Regan scalia and kennedy ,two by bush 1(one retired
David Souter and Clarence Tomas) two by Clinton (Ginsberg,breyer) bush the second appointed two as i stated earlier (roberts and alto) then two
appointed by obama (Sotomayor, Kagan) so how exactly is it the bush the 2nds "stacked deck" that is the problem seems on average each president has
gotten two choices each for going all the way back to Regan. nixon and eisenhower break the trend and each got 3 and four appointees respectively

if you have a problem with a sitting member of the supreme court you could always try to impeach them(write your reps)....but as the house
decides(house impeaches senate presides ) that i dont see that happening kind of like how some on the right would love to impeach obama but cant
because while the house may file the senate will never convict. but good luck with such endeavors as they have only tried to impeach one in history
and that failed miserably

also of note(while i personally dont believe corporations are people) they have the best reccord of any challenged law each time its challenged
corporate person-hood is stated as viable and the law by the supreme's going all the way back to 1864ish santa clara(city or county) vs the rail road
where this all got started,corporate person-hood has been established for good or bad in the supreme court since before any of us were born

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the
same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the
court reporter, Bancroft Davis,[1] noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The
court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it
does."[2] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v.
Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a
private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose
and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by
the Court many times since.

so it goes way farther then citizenes united that was the final nail so to speak

I disagree. Just because we might not always agree with their decisions, it doesn't mean that they are the worst in modern history. They have not
been very receptive toward Obama's agenda, true. In fact, they have unanimously ruled against this administration 13 times since 2012. That's a
lot, and being that two of the sitting justices were appointed by Obama himself, it's quite telling.

I might be inclined to agree that they are the worst because they decided that Obamacare was a tax, despite the administration specifically claiming
it was not a tax, and was therefor constitutional. But... They are where the buck stops (not that Andrew Jackson listened). I disagree with
Obamacare, but the high courts have spoken. It is what it is.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.